Women tend to have to do all the work during the week, so on Sundays they get to relax and let the men take over!

THUMBS UP!

Frankly, having been involved in a couple of traditional religious faiths in my life, I have noticed that the modernists have been trying to infiltrate and change just about every traditional religion. They won't get anywhere with Traditional (pre-V2) Catholicism, since their whole premise is to NOT change....but they are trying within Orthodox Judaism, and now, I see, Orthodox Christianity. They won over the mainline liberal protestant denominations ages ago, and to a degree, the modern novus ordo Catholic church.

Religions should not have to change to suit people. People need to change to fit into what the Church teaches.

That is what I find most annoying... the people that want change are never happy to change themselves and allow others to remain the same, they insist on forcing it on everyone else. I guess it is the only way they feel legitimate.

I am an Orthodox Christian and I am trying to explain a few non-denominational individuals that Orthodox Church does not deny equal rights of women by letting only men reach priesthood. I am aware that our Church follows biblical, traditional and theological principles towards leadership. What is the best way to explain this to these people?

ANSWER:Sometimes, we must explain things with the right terms. For instance, we must distinguish between essential equality and functional differences. Man and woman are essential equal but have difference roles. A man can never bear a child and have the unique spiritual importance of a mother. It is not about "reaching" something but being organically able to function in a particular role. A man (being XY) can represent the entire human race and the new Adam/Christ but a woman (being XX) cannot. It that sense we can say that the feminine is there in the ministry of the ordained minister, but not in isolation, always in the fullness of the unity of masculine and feminine which man can bear.

Moreover, because the ordained ministers (especially bishop and presbyter) are iconic figures of the Father, Christ and the Apostles, they must be accurate icons, i.e. man. The Church never denied the essential equality of man and women but does not ignore that they have different functions in God's economy.

“But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either.” +Luke 6:27-29

I brought up the point that Father Thomas Hopko made and the response was that it was no defense at all since men are being excluded on lack of merit while women are being excluded based on being born a woman. So I'm not sure how great of an argument that is.

Why would he call being a divorcee or an amputee or a soldier who killed in wartime "unworthiness?" That sounds unfair.

What does fairness have to do with it?

Btw, besides the amputee, it is quite fair.

I was saying him calling them unworthy is what isn't fair. Many divorces and most cases of wartime killing are simply unavoidable tragedies. The Church excluding these men from the priesthood is not based on whether they could do the job but on ritual considerations, as is the exclusion of women. And yes, that is fair I agree.

I don't know about the term "unworthy," but "unfit" would be a good term. It's not about "being able to do the job," but about manifesting certain qualities, I think. In any case, for those who want to be priests but cannot--whether through an impediment or a lack of education or whatever, there is still the possibility of being an intercessor for others through one's prayer and active love. Such was the case with the modern fool for Christ, Crazy John.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

For me, it was ultimately a matter of trust. (and before Orthodoxy found me, I was on my way to a Lutheran seminary with the goal of becoming a Lutheran pastor.)

That is, trust the Church to "get it right", even if I don't understand or agree at that particular point in time, in the hope that I may be eventually enlightened and understand.

Katherine,If you would be willing to share more I would be interested. I am curious about how you dealt with having to set aside your desire to be a cleric.

Thanks.

Mostly I came to the point where I realized that I had to trust that the Church had gotten it right - that picking and choosing what I was willing to believe is both an emotional and spiritual dead end. Once a little of the ego dissipated, that is. That kind of, if I may say so, "typical Protestant attitude" is just a tad arrogant. Why do I think I would be any smarter than St. Gregory Palamas - and other Fathers of the Church? I have a hard time even understanding them. Or why would I think that I understand the Christian teachings better than the disciples of the Apostles, who died for their faith?So which is more likely - that people like St. John Chrysostom or St. Iraeneus are wrong or that I am wrong, and will eventually come to understand, with God's help.

It is up to me to let the Church change me - it is not up to me to change the Church or the beliefs, teachings and praxis of a couple of millenia of Christianity.

(Plus, when the fog of ego cleared a little, I was able to notice that, while I know quite a few great women who are pastors, I didn't know any great women pastors, if you know what I mean.)

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."